My Daily Struggles

A blog devoted to the actors and public policy issues involved in the 1998 District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision in Freedman v. D.C. Department of Human Rights, an employment discrimination case.

This email transmission and any included attachments are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed for their official and confidential use. This communication, along with any attachments, is covered by federal and state law governing electronic communications and may contain confidential and legally privileged or protected information under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the D.C. Mental Health Information Act (MHIA), or 42 CFR Part 2. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete/destroy all copies of the original transmission.

Friday, February 05, 2016

February 5, 2016 3801 Connecticut Avenue, NW Apartment 136 Washington, DC 20008 Mr. Paul Abbate Assistant Director in Charge FBI Washington Field Office 601 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20535 Dear Mr. Abbate: The enclosed documents constitute circumstantial evidence of acts of criminal fraud committed in violation of the laws of the United States and the District of Columbia.
Said fraud may ultimately lead to a financial loss to the federal government of up to $500,000. Sincerely Gary Freedman

I am writing to you pursuant to the
Petition Clause of the First Amendment.

I hereby petition the U.S.
Department of Justice to compel the D.C. Department of BehavioralHealth (DBH) to provide the psychiatric
services to which I am entitled as a resident of the District of Columbia who
is disabled and who has been diagnosed with severe (psychotic) mental illness.I had been receiving psychiatric services
continuously from July 1996 to until February 2, 2015 (20 years), on which date
my treatment was abruptly terminated without warning and only two weeks after
DBH dispatched an MPDC officer to my residence (January 13, 2016) out of
concerns about the severity of my mental condition.

The District Government has made
numerous admissions over many years that my situation is extremely serious.

Sincerely,

Gary Freedman

cc: Dr. Royster (DBH); Karl A.
Racine (DCOAG); FBI

February 2, 2016

3801
Connecticut Avenue, NW

Apt. 136

Washington, DC20008

Tanya Royster, M.D.

Director

D.C. Department of Behavioral Health

Third Floor

64 New York Avenue, NW

Washington, DC20002

Dr. Royster:

I have received psychiatric
treatment provided by the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) since the
year 1996, 20 years. On Monday February 1, 2016, I was advised by Monica
Acharya, M.D., attending physician at the K Street Clinic (35 K Street, Washington,
DC), that DBH was involuntarily terminating my psychiatric treatment with Alice
E. Stone, M.D., a third-year psychiatry resident working under the supervision
of Earle Baughman, M.D. (St. Elisabeths Hospital). Dr. Stone had been
providing psychiatric treatment to me since August 2015, five months.My patient record will not disclose any
conflicts with Dr. Stone throughout the treatment.

Dr. Acharya told me that I needed to
see an experienced psychiatrist, and that DBH has no experienced psychiatrists
who can treat me. Dr. Acharya made no effort to help me locate
alternative treatment.Dr. Acharya
admitted that my case is extremely serious.On the evening of January 13, 2016 Dr. Acharya had an MPDC officer
dispatched to my residence out of concerns about me.

I want to make it clear:I did not refuse to see my treating
psychiatrist, Dr. Stone.I had simply
requested to see a male therapist and/or a psychodynamically-oriented therapist
(see attached).I did not file a
complaint against Dr. Stone to anyone at DBH; I had communicated my concerns
about Dr. Stone’s professional competence to my case manager, Natalie Nichols
at the McClendon Center (see attached).

I am a resident of the District of
Columbia; I have been diagnosed with severe (psychotic) mental illness
including paranoid schizophrenia. DBH has a legal duty to provide treatment.
My case is of a nature that it must
not be allowed to languish.

I need to remind you of troubling
aspects of my history.

1. Dennis M. Race, Esq., (202
887-4028) senior counsel with my former employer, the law firm of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a practicing
psychiatrist, that I was potentially violent and unemployable. Mr. Race
concluded that I posed a direct threat in the workplace.

2. I have been under federal
investigation by the U.S. Secret Service (redacted) as a potential security risk to former President Bill Clinton.

3. I have been under federal
investigation by the U.S. Secret Service (redacted) as a potential
security risk to President Obama.

4. I have been under federal
investigation by the U.S. Marshals Service (redacted) as a potential
security risk to U.S. District Court Judge (redacted). At the
time of the investigation the USMS imposed temporary protective measures
against me.

5. I was advised by the U.S.
Capitol Police (redacted) that my name has been placed on a federal
watch list of potentially violent felons.

6. In the year 2004 10 MPDC
officers (including an MPDC Second District Supervisor) and 4 FBI agents were dispatched to my
residence based on concerns that I might become armed and extremely dangerous.

7. I am completely isolated
socially. I have no friends or social contacts of any kind. My only
relative is a sister who lives in New Jersey. I rarely see her. I
live within walking distance of the federal district in Washington, DC. I
suffer from profound loneliness. Psychological testing performed in the
year 2014 disclosed that I am "severely paranoid."

I strongly urge the DC Department of
Behavioral Health to locate appropriate counseling treatment for me. I am
sure several U.S. Congressmen would be interested to learn about DBH's handling
of my case.

I am a consumer of mental health
services provided by the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health (DBH).I receive supportive psychotherapy and
medical management provided by Alice E. Stone, M.D., a third year psychiatry
resident at 35 K Street.Dr. Stone works
under the supervision of Earle Baughman, M.D. (St. Elisabeths Hospital).

I am deeply concerned about the
failure of DBH to provide appropriate psychotherapy for me, which would be
psychodynamic, insight oriented therapy.Supportive psychotherapy is inadequate for my needs.

I need to remind the DBH that the
D.C. Office of Attorney General and others have grave concerns about my case
and my potential for violence, including the potential for armed mass homicide.

1. The D.C. Office of Attorney
General affirmed as genuine and credible a psychiatric opinion offered to my
former employer, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (Dennis M. Race, Esq.)
(1991) that concluded that I suffered from severe mental illness that rendered
me unsuitable for employment and a direct threat in the workplace.The employer in a sworn statement stated that
it feared, based on said psychiatric opinion, that allowing me to remain on the
firm’s premises posed a negligence risk to the firm.(The psychiatrist in question, Gertrude R.
Ticho, M.D. (deceased) denied ever having offered said opinion to the employer.See letter to William J. Earl, Esq. dated
March 19, 1996 (enclosed)).

2.The D.C. Court of Appeals did not find that my former supervisor’s
published fear (1991) that I might commit a mass homicidal assault on the
firm’s premises and her act of securing her office against such an assault was
motivated by discriminatory animus.See
Record at 41, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights, D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961
(Sept. 1, 1998).

3.The D.C. Office of Attorney General found that my coworkers’ fears that I
might become armed and extremely dangerous in August 1989 (two years before my
job termination) were genuine and credible.The AG concluded that my coworkers had genuine and credible fears that I
might “buy a gun, bring it in, and shoot everybody.”See Brief of D.C. Office of Corporation
Counsel at 8 citing Record at 276, Freedman v. D.C. Dept. Human Rights,
D.C.C.A. no. 96-CV-961 (Sept. 1, 1998).

4.On October 12, 2004 the MPDC dispatched 10 police officers and four FBI
agents to my residence to escort me to D.C. General Hospital for an emergency
forensic psychiatric examination.The
MPDC feared that I might become armed and extremely dangerous.

I urge the DBH to heed the concerns
of the D.C. Attorney General and the MPDC and provide the psychodynamic
psychotherapy that I require.

In the course of investigating Gary's complaints about working conditions (none
of which, by his own admission, involved activity or conduct which had a direct
impact on him), I concluded that Gary's inability to work or interrelate with
others is a substantial problem for the firm. There is only so much work that
can be done without any interaction among our staff (which is what he requests)
and his continued presence in the firm has been extremely disruptive. Reported
outbursts and arguably bizarre behavior have made it uncomfortable and
sometimes disruptive for many of his co-workers -- some of whom have voiced
fear in working with or nearby him. In addition he is very difficult to
supervise.

Malcolm Lassman and I have also discussed this matter, including Gary's work
habits (as well as his habit of putting negative meanings to even trivial
events i.e., "ideas of reference") with two outside consultants and
both concurred that termination was the sound approach to take. One outside consultant also cautioned about
the possibility of violence.

Accordingly, on the basis of disruptive work habits, unusual behavior and
discussions with outside consultants, I believe that termination is warranted.
Indeed, to do otherwise may prove to be negligent. I have discussed this with
representatives of the Management Committee and our Administrative Staff and
everyone concurs.

Gary will be given an additional two weeks severance (a total of four weeks)
not only to cover extra time to look for alternative work but also to help
cover insurance costs which will be borne directly by him upon leaving the
firm.

I want to confirm that we spoke about the following issues concerning my
psychiatrist Dr. Stone, today January 21, 2016.

It is my belief that Dr. Stone falls short of providing appropriate and
effective psychotherapy.

1. Dr. Stone gives the impression of having intellectual
limitations. She me told the the following anecdote: "Before I went
to medical school people were saying to me, 'You're not smart enough to be a
doctor. You should be a nurse.'" It is my subjective
perception that Dr. Stone is not the intellectual equal of other residents I
have seen. Without intending to brag, I want to report that my overall IQ
was measured at 125 (95th percentile) and my verbal IQ was measured at 136 (99th
percentile). On the School and College Abilities Test (SCAT) my verbal
reasoning was measured at 97th percentile among a pool of gifted
students. The SCAT test is only administered to gifted students. I
find it a strain talking to Dr. Stone.

2. Dr. Stone's professional demeanor is unprofessional and adverse to the
process of therapy, which involves the disclosure of sensitive material by a
patient. Dr. Stone tells wisecracks and jokes throughout the
session. For example: In late December 2015 I told Dr. Stone that I
had lined up a possible alternative therapist for me in private practice who
happened to be a woman. Dr. Stone responded (knowing that I wanted
a male therapist), "Well, it sounds like -- if she got a sex change
operation she would be the ideal therapist for you."

Dr. Stone said she told the following wisecrack to a fellow psychiatry
resident, Dr. Youssefi, a Muslim from Iran: "Do you lock your wife in a
room all day?" When I told her that statement was offensive she
said, "He laughed."

When I was talking to Dr. Stone about being on the Atkins Diet and the issue of
fat metabolism she said, "Oh, it's been so long since I was a real
doctor."

3. Dr. Stone seems unable to maintain clinical distance and maintain
appropriate professional boundaries. She acts as if she were talking to a
friend -- not a patient:

She has told me the following personal facts, which no doctor should reveal to
a patient.

a. Her daughter has autism.

b. Her mother's birthday is December 20, and her mother gets angry if you
only get her a Christmas present and no birthday present.

c. Her father has suffered from sleep apnea.

d. Her mother attended American University and complains about the high
tuition.

I have received psychiatric treatment provided by the D.C. Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) since the year 1996, 20 years. On Monday February 1, 2016, I was advised by Monica Acharya, M.D., attending physician at the K Street Clinic (35 K Street, Washington, DC), that DBH was involuntarily terminating my psychiatric treatment with Alice E. Stone, M.D., a third-year psychiatry resident working under the supervision of Earle Baughman, M.D. (St. Elisabeths Hospital). Dr. Acharya told me that I needed to see an experienced psychiatrist, and that DBH has no experienced psychiatrists who can treat me. Dr. Acharya made no effort to help me locate alternative treatment.

I am a resident of the District of Columbia; I have been diagnosed with severe (psychotic) mental illness including paranoid schizophrenia. DBH has a legal duty to provide psychiatric treatment. DBH's treatment refusal is a violation of DC law and may also be contrary to applicable federal law.

I need to remind you of troubling aspects of my history.

1. Dennis M. Race, Esq., (202 887-4028) senior counsel with my former employer, the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, determined, in consultation with a practicing psychiatrist, that I was potentially violent and unemployable. Mr. Race concluded that I posed a direct threat in the workplace.

2. I have been under federal investigation by the U.S. Secret Service as a potential security risk to former President Bill Clinton.

3. I have been under federal investigation by the U.S. Secret Service as a potential security risk to President Obama.

4. I have been under federal investigation by the U.S. Marshals Service as a potential security risk to U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle. At the time of the investigation the USMS imposed temporary protective measures against me.

5. I was advised by the U.S. Capitol Police that my name has been placed on a federal watch list of potentially violent felons.

6. In the year 2004 10 MPDC officers and 4 FBI agents were dispatched to my residence based on concerns that I might become armed and extremely dangerous.

7. I am completely isolated socially. I have no friends or social contacts of any kind. My only relative is a sister who lives in New Jersey. I rarely see her. I live within walking distance of the federal district in Washington, DC. I suffer from profound loneliness. Psychological testing performed in the year 2014 disclosed that I am "extremely paranoid."

I strongly urge the DC Department of Behavioral Health to locate appropriate psychiatric treatment for me. I am sure several U.S. Congressmen would be interested to learn about DBH's handling of my case.

Monday, February 01, 2016

I met with Monica Acharya, M.D. this afternoon, February 1, 2016. Dr. Acharya is Dr. Stone's supervisor. Dr. Acharya has advised me that DBH is terminating my work with Dr. Stone and has talked to McClendon about Dr. Steury taking me on as a psychotherapy patient. Dr. Acharya emphasized the fact that I need to see an experienced therapist and the only therapists available from DBH are residents. Apparently DHB is refusing to offer me treatment.

I have serious concerns about DBH cutting me loose. I have been diagnosed with psychotic mental illness. Two psychiatrists have diagnosed me with paranoid schizophrenia. Also the DC Attorney General affirmed to the D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals that my former coworkers had genuine and credible fears that I could become armed and extremely dangerous. My former supervisor took precautions against my carrying out a mass homicidal assault on my employer's premises. Do you think I should contact the U.S. Attorney's Office about the refusal of DBH to provide treatment?

December 29, 20153801 Connecticut Avenue, NWApartment 136Washington,
DC 20008Alice E. Stone, M.D.
Mental Health Clinic
D.C. Department of Behavioral Health
35 K Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002RE: Note
Regarding the Idealizing TransferenceDear Dr. Stone:I have formed an idealizing
transference with my primary care doctor that complements my negative transference to you. An examination of my
psychological background reveals that my transference reactions to my primary care doctor and
you, respectively, appear to be a derivative of my childhood experiences and my
early psychological relations with my parents.I have isolated out of my
life history all of the relationships, events, and experiences that can give rise
to intense primitive idealization in adulthood. We are left with the following
summary:1. Pre-Oedipal:a. Subject experienced his
mother as engulfing. Subject experienced his father as distant and
disappointing.b. Subject experienced
physical trauma in early childhood. His father beat him as an infant and in
early childhood. He suffered a serious injury to the oral cavity at age
two-and-one-half. Mother negligently failed to protect subject against these
traumas (see 3, below).2. Oedipal:Subject directed intense
destructive (aggressive) impulses against his parents during the Oedipal stage.
Subject hated his parents.3. Latency:Mother negligently failed to
protect subject against narcissistic aggression by family members. (see 1(b)
above).Subject experienced
functional libidinal object loss in latency.4. Adulthood:Subject is defiant and
oppositional.Subject struggles with the
effects of pathological mourning.Theoretical ImplicationsPre-Oedipal:a. Relationship with
Engulfing Mother and Distant FatherSubject’s object hunger, his
idealizing merger needs are fixations on archaic pre-oedipal forms deriving
from deficits emerging out of his relationship with an engulfing mother who
used subject for her own selfobject needs and in his frustrating relationship
with a father unavailable for idealization. Cowan, J. “Blutbruderschaft and
Self Psychology in D.H. Lawrence’s Women in Love in Self and Sexuality” (2002).
Subject’s idealization of males is a defense against being swallowed up by a
woman. See Shengold, L. Soul Murder: The
Effects of Childhood Deprivation and Abuse (see especially the chapter,
“The Parent as Sphinx”). Subject’s psychology parallels Kohut’s analysand Mr. U
who, turning away from the unreliable empathy of his mother, tried to gain confirmation
of his self through an idealizing relationship with his father. The self
absorbed father, however, unable to respond appropriately, rebuffed his son’s
attempt to be close to him, depriving him of the needed merger with the
idealized self-object and, hence, of the opportunity for gradually recognizing
the self-object’s shortcomings. Cowan, Self and Sexuality at 59 quoting Kohut,
H. In adulthood, subject views certain males as perfect, without any
shortcomings.Subject’s failure to resolve
the dyadic father idealization that emerged at the earliest stages of
development has had significant, even profound, reverberations in subject’s
adult life. Subject’s dyadic father attachment was never subjected to a
sufficient or lasting resolution during his adolescence, namely, at that period
in life when the final step in the resolution of the male father complex is
normally transacted. Blos, P. “Freud and the Father Complex.” The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child
Vol. 37: 425-441 at 434 (1987).Emotional reverberations of
the subject’s unresolved father attachment in the subject’s adult life can be
seen in his idealization of certain male figures. Blos at 434-35. Subject’s
father idealization suffered a catastrophic shock at his father’s death, Blos
at 436, when subject was 23 years old; subject succumbed to severe depression
and ultimately attempted suicide 16 months later.Subject’s unresolved father
attachment is probably related to his fears of maternal engulfment and
misogyny. The role or function of the early father is that of a rescuer or
savior at the time when the small child normally makes his determined effort to
gain independence from the first and exclusive caretaking person, the mother.
Blos at 428-29. Subject’s continuing need for the protecting presence of the
father is a residual effect of both his failure to resolve his early father
idealization as well as fantasied and objective dangers emanating from
aggressive female objects (and a disturbed male) in the subject’s developmental
environment.1. Pre-Oedipalb. Trauma (Beatings and
Physical Injury)Subject suffered a physical
trauma (an accidental injury in the oral cavity) in childhood (aged 2.5) as
well as childhood beatings; theses traumas and their aftermath may have led to
an ego attitude of justified rebellion in subject and a distortion in
ego-superego interaction that interfered with normal superego maturation. The
tendency to massive superego externalization, normal in early latency, may
never have been outgrown and may have resulted in a character disturbance in
subject termed by Freud, “the exceptions.” Fernando, J. “The Exceptions:
Structural and Dynamic Aspects.” The
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol. 52: 17-28 (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1997).These traumas and their
aftermath may have led to a lifelong fate neurosis (repetition compulsion)
whereby subject has a tendency to repeat the feelings and reactions of his
trauma (including the parents’ attempts to evade their own guilty feelings
about the accident by blaming subject), which feelings and reactions may have
become structured into a portion of subject’s superego. Fernando at 20.Subject displays two
attitudes–submission and rebellion–toward his fate and toward that portion of
his superego into which the strictures of this fate became structured. The
circumstances of the accident and the double attitude subject developed because
of them are important factors in subject’s ego disturbance. Fernando at 21.
Subject has become a victim of fate, destined to have his excited, rising hopes
dashed by one circumstance or another. It is at the point where he feels
himself badly mistreated by the fate that had crushed his hopes that he assumes
the character of an “exception,” until his hopes begin to rise again and he
enters the next phase of the cycle. Fernando at 22.Subject’s development
foundered on his inability to accomplish one of the major tasks of late
adolescence: the integration of previously unresolved traumas into the
character structure, or what Blos calls the “characterological stabilization of
residual trauma.” Fernando at 22.Subject’s superego–or, more
correctly, that portion of it into which the demands and treatment of his
unfair fate became internalized–did not undergo the usual progressive
neutralization of its energies, integration into the personality, and
distancing from its origins. Fernando at 23. The relative lack of superego
maturation and integration in the subject affects the ego ideal and its integration
into the personality as a substructure within the superego system, a process
that normally takes place definitively in late adolescence. Fernando at 24. As
a consequence subject finds it impossible to relinquish his attachment to the
idealized images of his parents and instead attempts to recapture his ideals in
concrete form in idealized surrogates, or parental derivatives. Fernando at 24.
Subject’s social interests may be largely limited to such persons. Fernando at
18.cf. Blum, Harold P.,
“Picasso’s Prolonged Adolescence, Blue Period, and Blind Figures.” The
Psychoanalytic Review: Vol. 100, No. 2, pp. 267-287 (2013) (trauma in Picasso’s
childhood had reverberations in later life).2. Oedipal StageA common daydream which in
spite of its frequency has received very little attention to-date is the
fantasy of possessing a twin. It is a conscious fantasy, built up in the
latency period as the result of disappointment by the parents — and retaliatory
destructive impulses directed by the child in fantasy against the parents — in
the oedipus situation, in the child’s search for a partner who will give him
all the attention, love and companionship he desires and who will provide an
escape from loneliness and solitude. The same emotional conditions are the basis
of the family romance. In that well-known daydream the child in the latency
period develops fantasies of having a better, kinder and worthier family than
his own, which has so bitterly disappointed and disillusioned him. The parents
have been unable to gratify the child’s instinctual wishes; in disappointment
his love turns to hate; he now despises his family and, in revenge, turns
against it. He has death-wishes against the former love-objects, and as a
result feels alone and forsaken in the world. Burlingham, D.T. “The Fantasy of
Having a Twin.” The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. Vol.
1 at 205 (1945). A further element in many daydreams of having a twin is that
of the imaginary twin being a complement to the daydreamer. The latter endows
his twin with all the qualities and talents that he misses in himself and
desires for himself. The twin thus represents his superego. Id. at 209. See also, Coen, S.J.,
Bradlow, P.A. “Twin Transference as a Compromise Formation.” J. Am. Psychoanal. Assoc., 30(3): 599-620
(1982). Twin transference, together with all twin fantasies, subserves multiple
functions, including gratification and defense against the dangers of intense
object need. In this formulation, the twinlike representation of the object
provides the illusion of influence or control over the object by the pretense
of being able to impersonate or transform oneself into the object and the
object into the self. Intense object need persists together with a partial
narcissistic defense against full acknowledgment of the object by representing
the sought-after object as combining aspects of self and other.3. LatencySubject experienced an
abrupt, defensive internalization of the maternal object in response to her
negligent failure to protect him against the narcissistic aggression of family
members.In cases in which
internalization of the ambivalently-cathected maternal object (that embodies
the combined functions of negative sanction and endowing approval) occurs
abruptly and prematurely, without adequate neutralization of ego-ideal and
superego precursor, shame and castration anxiety do not become integrated into
a smoothly operating unconscious guilt mechanism. Pathological guilt, shame and
castration anxiety together with a tendency to intense primitive idealization
will be seen in pathological manifestations. Freeman, D.M.A., Foulks, E.F., and
Freeman, P.A. “Superego Development and Psychopathology.” The Psychoanalytic Study of Society, vol. 7 at 121 (1976) (Gertrude
R. Ticho, M.D., contributing editor).Subject experienced
functional libidinal object loss in latency, that is, his premature and abrupt
internalization of the ambivalently-cathected maternal object. Subject’s
idealization of my primary care doctor can be seen as a manic defense against destructive
impulses. The idealization may be related to the idealization (and splitting)
seen in mourners, where the deceased is seen as all-good (manic denial by the
mourner of destructive impulses) and the mourner depicts himself as unworthy to
have been associated with the deceased. “She was too good for me.” In mourning,
according to Melanie Klein, the mourner is provided with the opportunity of
splitting the destroyed part of the loved object from the loved part, of
burying the destroyed bad objects and impulses, and of protecting the good
loved part as an eternal memory. See Jaques, E. “On the Dynamics of Social
Structure: A Contribution to the Psychoanalytical Study of Social Phenomena
Deriving from the Views of Melanie Klein.” The manic subject tends to downplay
the power of the object, to disdain it, while at the same time maintaining
maximum control over objects. Manic defenses are typified by three feelings,
namely control, triumph, contempt. Klein, Melanie. (1940). “Mourning and its
relation to manic-depressive states.” International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 21 : 125-153. In the suspended animation aspect
of manic defense, omnipotent control of the bad internal objects stops all
truly good relationships. The individual feels dead inside and the world
appears still and colorless. Manic defense involves the reversal of depressive
feelings. The use of manic defense is typical of individuals who dread sadness
and are unable to mourn. Manic defense is a frequent maneuver against pain and
suffering associated with object loss (real or functional). Akhtar, S. The Three Faces of Mourning: Melancholia,
Manic Defense and Moving On.4. Adulthood — Oppositional,
Defiant and Rebellious Behavior (see also 1(b) above (Preoedipal trauma giving
rise to rebellion).The rivalry feelings of
subject with his father (and father derivatives), the expressions of
competition, oppositionalism, and defiance, in action and thought, which are
directed against the father (or father derivatives), have to be largely
comprehended as the result of an incomplete detachment from the early father
and his protective presence in the subject’s life–a presence either actual,
construed, or wished for. Blos at 426.Subject’s defiant behavior
(toward father derivatives) is a cognate of his idealization (of certain male
figures):Subject had a statistically
significant score on MMPI Scale 4 — the Psychopathic Deviate Scale.In the workplace subject has
experienced workplace mobbing in basic assumptions groups. Research shows that
basic assumptions groups target as scapegoats persons who harbor intense
aggressive impulses against groups. Hafsi, Mohamed. “Experimental Inquiry into
the Psychodynamics of the Relationship between the Group’s Dominant Basic
Assumption Type and Scapegoating Phenomenon.”
Psychologica: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient vol. 41,
no. 4 (December 1998): 272-84. 1/Compare 2 above: subject
harbored intense destructive impulses against his parents during the Oedipal
period.So we see that my feelings
about my primary care doctor are a condensation of a host of life experiences that give rise
to idealization.Subject’s idealization of his primary care doctor does not simply reflect his loneliness and isolation, but is a symptom of
a severe narcissistic defect, a defect of self.Sincerely,Gary Freedman_________________________________1/ Hafsi, M. “Experimental
Inquiry into the Psychodynamics of the Relationship between the Group’s
Dominant Basic Assumption Type and Scapegoating Phenomenon.”The present study constitutes
an attempt to investigate experimentally the conditions leading to the
phenomenon of scapegoating. Applying Bion’s concepts of “basic assumptions”,
and “valency”, it was hypothesized that 1) scapegoating was more likely to
occur in groups characterized by the valency constitution of fight as defined
and measured in the present study, 2) that the scapegoated members display a
negative attitude towards the group that predispose them to the scapegoat role.
Based on their valencies as measured by the Reaction to Group Situation Test
Nara University (RGST-Nu), the subjects (N=100) were divided into 20
homogeneous (having a same valency) groups of 5 members each. There were thus 4
“fight” groups, 4 “pairing” groups, 4 “flight” groups, 4 “dependency” groups,
and 4 cooperation tendency groups (groups characterized by work group). The
results supported the first hypothesis that fight groups were more likely to
resort to scapegoating than other groups. Moreover, the results revealed also
that, as hypothesized, the scapegoated member displayed in fact the most
negative attitude towards the group.The prime polarity in regard
to one’s orientation to a group is alienation versus belonging. One is either a
member of a group (belonging) or an outsider (alienation). The corresponding
anxieties are a fear of alienation (the fear of being an outsider) versus
anxieties attached to belonging, specifically with regard to the need to
subvert one’s individuality (de-differentiation). Alford, C.F. Group Psychology
and Political Theory.Most people want to belong.
Most people fear alienation. Far more rare is the individual who fears losing
his individuality, who is anxious about belonging because he doesn’t want to
pay the price of admission — loss of personal identity (de-differentiation) and
the assumption of a group identity.Subject experiences little
anxiety about being alienated but experiences intense fear of loss of
individuality.Subject’s idealization of his primary care doctor, a mirror-image object, expresses his need to preserve his individuality.
He craves a connection to people who will not require that he give up his
identity. Emotional investment in like-minded people preserves his
individuality.Subject’s difficulties in the
workplace grow out of his anxieties in relation to belonging to a group whose
values differ from his own. And since he doesn’t fear alienation, he doesn’t
feel he is losing anything by not belonging. But the cost is assuming the
outsider role which can include being subjected to group aggression.One of the functions of
groups is to divert aggression away from group members onto outsiders. Subject
assumes the role of the outsider. He is a prime candidate to be a victim of job
harassment. Subject’s victimization in a group setting is insidiously and
inevitably related to his need for mirror image objects (like his primary care doctor) that
allow him to preserve his individuality and avoid de-differentiation.